re: Judge Cannon Hands Trump His Second Major Win in 24 Hours

quote:

---

Are you misgendered me?

---

SFP just as Hank spends an inordinate amount of time posing as an informed 'lawyer' on a message board. Again suspecting an alter. Some things to connect have not been apparent such as Hank's use of ALL CAPS when desperate to make a point. But the schtick remains the same otherwise.

quote:

---

Much different court composition since Nixon was in office

---

We know there will be almost 4 autos for precedent (3 liberals and Roberts, who doesn't want to make the court political).

ACB is a lot like Roberts outside of abortion, in that she doesn't want the court political and creating unnecessary issues (like her concurrence in the Colorado case)

Kavabaugh is all about the bureaucracy and protecting just this sort of action

Is it possible they lose both? Yes, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'd put money at 6-3 or even 7-2 if I got the odds. Didn't Gorsuch author the opinion butchering the CRA for trans people because they were boxed in with precedent?

Had PI been called on Robey-Coleman against Lewis in 2019 NFCCG, do you think the Saints go on to win the Superbowl?

None of us knows, but you can provide your opinion.

Had Trump announced 18 mos ago that he wouldn’t run in 2024, do you think this case would have come to a trial in 2024?

Again, if the attorney general had and always had plenary power to appoint special counsels with nationwide jurisdiction, why did congress think it had to pass the independent counsel statute those many moons ago which sunsetted and wasn't renewed? Did they not read the Nixon precedent? You have to admit, it's kind of strange if this is so cut and dry.

quote:

---

Had Trump announced 18 mos ago that he wouldn’t run in 2024, do you think this case would have come to a trial in 2024?

---

I don't think they would have filed an indictment against Trump until he gave him a solid crime, which he ultimately did with the obstruction-related stuff.

The rest of that case is window dressing to me.

quote:

---

Again, if the attorney general had and always had plenary power to appoint special counsels with nationwide jurisdiction, why did congress think it had to pass the independent counsel statute those many moons ago which sunsetted and wasn't renewed? Did they not read the Nixon precedent? You have to admit, it's kind of strange if this is so cut and dry.

---

That's why I brought up that CRA/trans case with Gorsuch, b/c Congress clearly didn't anticipate anything other that biological sex with the word "sex" in the statute. Gorsuch disagreed with Congressional intent and how they viewed the necessity of the law as it related to the issues of the time.

That has nothing to do with what I pointed out. That's why I pointed it out again. It's the exact opposite case in fact.

There isn't a statute anymore. It expired. It's why the reasoning has no force. Also, the Gorsuch opinion you're referencing claims to be textual. Even the dissents point out he's claiming a textualist ground. But no matter, it doesn't really have any relevance to what we're talking about, other than you should probably read the opinion again.

Also, why did the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and Ken Starr himself all claim the independent counsel/special prosecutor laws were unconstitutional if the attorney general has and always had plenary power to appoint a special counsel with nationwide jurisdiction? So it's unconstitutional when done by statute duly enacted by congress and signed into law, but constitutional when done by fiat of the attorney general?